Holocaust Memorial Bill

Lord Herbert of South Downs Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 21st January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Debbonaire (Lab)]

My Lords, I had not intended to speak in this debate but, for the avoidance of doubt, I was in the Chamber when it started—I rushed in—because I wish to hear every word. That is partly because I was first alerted to the provisions of the memorial by Anita Lasker-Wallfisch, my cello teacher Raphael’s mother, and subsequently by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, many years ago. This was before 7 October.

The reason I mention this is that, when I was a Member in the other place, I represented a constituency that had extreme views and, as a non-Jew, I felt it was bad enough that I had to hear some of them. It was unbearable. I represented two synagogues, one Orthodox and one progressive, with a very diverse Jewish constituency with a range of political views. Before 7 October the feeling was—I consulted my constituents, and I wanted to put this on record, particularly for the noble Baroness, Lady Deech—that they wanted a memorial, as they all said. There were some variations but, overall, people said they wanted the memorial as proposed.

I put to them the arguments that the noble Baroness and I share. Yes, that is partly because I am so aware of Anita’s experience, longevity and wonderful personality, and the fact that, whenever she sees me, she checks my fingers before she says hello to make sure I am still practising the cello—despite everything. I really wanted to hear from my constituents that they also held some of those ambiguities, and they did not. But they were utterly clear about the issue of the purpose of the memorial and the learning centre.

This has been my concern since 7 October, since when, frankly, I have heard many things that reinforce the need for the purpose of the learning centre to be utterly clear, without doubt and without any diminution or dilution. People have been capable of saying the most dreadful things, which implied to me that they had little or no knowledge of the Shoah and why it matters, and why a focus on the Shoah and on antisemitism matters. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, is quite right to say that it is about not just the dead but the living. The risk of further such atrocities right now, specifically to Jews, is so great. I feel that, as a non-Jew, it is even more my duty to say that and to put on record that which many people have been frightened to say—they have been frightened to say the truth. That is why it mattered to me to see this amendment. However, I am afraid I share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, that seeking to put something in has made it weaker than the original thing that the other place has now rejected. I regret that, but this is the place we are at now.

I share other noble Lords’ determination that we should get this right, and I share the admiration for my noble friends Lord Collins and Lord Khan, who have worked so hard to get us to where we are. It feels like a tremendously long time since we began. However, the need for clarity of purpose has not diminished. It has only grown in the intervening years. I wish to put on record, in my name—as a non-Jew, but with former Jewish constituents who I did my best to represent—the doubling, tripling, quadrupling need that there seems to be, not just over the last four years since the atrocities of 7 October but even in the last four weeks, in Australia and in Manchester, given the sort of antisemitism that we hear about every day. We all know, having read the history of the Shoah, that this is how it starts. I share noble Lords’ determination that we should not hold back.

I share the disagreement of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, about where the memorial should be, but we are now past that. I encourage other noble Lords, if they have not already, to go to the Imperial War Museum and hear the beautiful cello playing of my cello teacher, Raphael, and see some of the things that Anita wore and was able to keep with her, which in themselves tell their story. I hope that this memorial and learning centre will tell the story as we need them to, now possibly more than ever.

[Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)]

My Lords, I too am puzzled why it is not possible to include this wording in the Bill. Given that the Bill makes provision for the construction of a Holocaust memorial and learning centre, why on earth can we not define what the learning centre is for? However, I accept the Minister’s assurances about the purposes.

I have one specific question that I would like to ask the Minister. When we debated this matter in June, I raised with the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, the issue of the definition of the word “Holocaust”, pointing out that the Holocaust included groups other than Jewish people. Of course, it was primarily an atrocity committed against Jewish people, and that will be the primary purpose of a memorial centre, but other groups were affected too, including LGBT people and disabled people, who were killed in concentration camps. The noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, assured me that his understanding was that the Holocaust did include such groups. Some of the contributions from noble Lords today make me wonder whether that is a shared assumption.

Since this debate is about clarity and definition, I would be grateful for the Minister’s assurance, on the back of the assurances he has given about the purpose of the learning centre, that his and the Government’s understanding is that the Holocaust included the murder of other groups at the same time, as part of the activities of the Nazi regime, and that that should not be excluded or considered to be mission creep, to use the words that some noble Lords have used in concern about the absence of a definition from the Bill. I would be grateful if the Minister could give me that same reassurance that the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, gave me in June.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, was right to admonish us and to remind your Lordships of the need to stay focused on the matter in hand at this stage of the Bill’s progress. However, it is seven months since the Division which saw noble Lords backing the sensible amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame. I am heartened to hear about the fruitful discussions that he has had with Ministers and officials about that matter in the intervening months. If noble Lords have had other remarks to make, it is because those extra months have, as we have heard, sadly added further examples of the importance of looking at this and getting it right. I agree with so many of the remarks I have heard.

My purpose in rising is to ask the Deputy Leader of the House about an issue that was not before us when the Bill was last debated in your Lordships’ House. He will know that the Crime and Policing Bill, which is also before your Lordships’ House, proposes to make it a criminal offence to climb on certain specified monuments and memorials. Schedule 12 to that Bill sets out 24 memorials that are listed at grade 1 and one further memorial that is not listed at grade 1, which is the statue of Winston Churchill in Parliament Square.